April 4, 2010

Gateway Pundit thinks it is and so does American Power, but they are righties. You have to look at this from a lefty perspective, and that's something that I — with a long life experience among the lefties — can do. (I went to the University of Michigan as an undergrad in 1969 and had SDS people arguing on the other side of my dorm room wall, I lived in the West Village in the 1970s, I went to NYU School of Law circa 1980, and I have been with the law professors at the University of Wisconsin — in what is affectionately known as the People's Republic of Madison — since 1984. I have had lovers quarrels with Communists.)

Here's the photographic juxtaposition that American Power calls "a genuinely sick comparison":

It was the front-page teaser for this "Week in Review" piece by Benedict Carey. Carey is a medicine and science writer for the newspaper, and his topic is the public display of anger in American politics. He's looking at the long history of demonstrations, and it's a great concept to put up a 60s "Days of Rage" photograph with a man yelling and gesturing along with a present-day Tea Party photograph with a man yelling and gesturing in just about the same way. That the man in the 60s photo is Bill Ayers is a fabulous bit of irony. It's a perfect illustration for Carey's topic, Carey's topic is a good one, and the newspaper succeeds in attracting readers.

Now, I understand the right-wing anger — hmmm — at the juxtaposition. The 60s protesters are Weathermen, and the Weathermen advocated and practiced violence. They murdered people. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are engaging in the highest form of freedom of expression: assembling in groups and criticizing the government.

But people on the left admire and respect the 1960s protests. They wish there was more expressive fervor on their side today. To have the passion and vitality of the 60s is a good thing. And the air of potential violence, especially in the absence of any actual violence? I think lefties love that. They may not admit they do. But there's a frisson. Remember, the NYT readers are aging liberals. They — we — remember the 60s as glory days. Yes, there was anger, and yes, it spilled over into violence sometimes, but the government deserved it, and these young people were idealistic and ready to give all for their ideals. They are remembered — even as (if?) their excesses are regretted — in a golden light.

***

Now, let's look at what Carey says:

Each party charged the other with fanning the flames of public outrage for political gain.

Sounds pretty balanced!

But ... [w]hat is the nature of public anger anyway, and can it be manipulated as easily as that?...

At a basic level, people subconsciously mimic the expressions of a conversation partner and in the process “feel” a trace of the other’s emotion, recent studies suggest....

And in groups organized around a cause, it’s the most extreme members who rise quickest, researchers have found....

See? He's a science writer. He's mining the sociology of anger. Carey first notes that "lone-wolf" actions are more likely to occur. But what of the notably non-loner types who go to demonstrations?

Protest groups that turn from loud to aggressive tend to draw on at least two other elements, researchers say. The first is what sociologists call a “moral shock” — a specific, blatant moral betrayal that, when most potent, evokes personal insults suffered by individual members...

The second element is a specific target clearly associated with the outrage. A law to change. A politician to remove. A company to shut down....

Given the shifting political terrain, the diversity of views in the antigovernment groups, and their potential political impact, experts say they expect that very few are ready to take the more radical step.

“Once you take that step to act violently, it’s very difficult to turn back,” [Kathleen Blee, a sociologist at the University of Pittsburgh] said. “It puts the group, and the person, on a very different path.”

So there. Carey concludes with a calming message about the link between vocal protest and real violence. Now, there is a bit of a warning:

If a group with enduring gripes is shut out of the political process, and begins to shed active members, it can leave behind a radical core. This is precisely what happened in the 1960s, when the domestic terrorist group known as the Weather Underground emerged from the larger, more moderate anti-war Students for a Democratic Society, Dr. McCauley said. “The SDS had 100,000 members and, frustrated politically at every step, people started to give up,” he said. “The result was that you had this condensation of a small, more radical base of activists who decided to escalate the violence.”

That appears near the end of the article. But you can easily see the message: Democracy. As long as the political process seems to work, people won't cross the line into violence. And the size of the Tea Party movement is a safeguard. In Carey's scenario, it's only if the masses of people — the ordinary, pretty conventional people — cool off and go home that we ought to worry about violence. You have the "radical core" left. That's what you don't want. So this NYT piece, after teasing us with the similarity between Tea Partiers and Weatherman, draws a decisive line separating them.

112 comments:

I'm not sure Obama and the progressives generally are smart enough to do this, but Canada had a similar movement back in the 80's. The Conservative government of the time talked fiscal responsibility, but were unable to control borrowing. The conservative movement split, and the Reform party was created from the anger (among others) about fiscally irresponsible government.

The Liberals, facing a divided opposition, won handily for the next 13 or so years. And with an opposition egging them on, actually did what was necessary to get rid of the deficit.

The Liberals used the angry Reform to change the expectations of politicians and voters, for the health of the country.

It's sad that the editorial persona of the NYT is so out of touch with the experience of average Americans that they view Tea Party movement people as if it was some lost exotic tribe that suddenly appreared out of nowhere.

It's sad that the editorial persona of the NYT is so out of touch with the experience of average Americans that they view Tea Party movement as if it was some lost exotic tribe that suddenly appreared out of nowhere.

Obama's problem is that he would have to change his own DNA, and the DNA of the Democratic Party to do what Chretien and the Liberals did in Canada. Obama just saddled the nation with a 2.5 - 3 trillion dollar entitlement program.

To his credit, Carey distinguished (and distinguishes) between the great mass or majority of protesters both 40 years ago and of today and the more radical elements that splintered from the anti-war/sixties element and are of the tea partyers. Two distinct groups.

Nowhere on the op-ed pages of the NY Times or, it seems to me, in much liberal talk do you see an understanding of those two elements. Using the more radical (and indeed potentially dangerous) segment of the tax protesters to smear the entire movement is no more fair than using the Weathermen Undeground to attack the entire Sixties protesters.

Guilt-by-association then, guilt-by-association now.

There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. Liberals dismiss it at their (political) peril.

If anyone at the NYT understood that they are the "Tea Party" movement and not the "teabaggers", they might understand what radicals the new movement parallels. Clue: It's goes back farther than the sixties - you know, back before anything ever "changed the world".

The picture juxtaposition is offensive to those who find the SDS/Weathermen people an inexcusable evil that was nonetheless excused and even lauded by the left. One of them mentored the current President.

More, they were anti-Constitutional communist traitors, seeking to overthrow the US government by fomenting a revolution. Thus, the comparison rankles.

But one can view the Tea Party and 60s radicals as examples of political change triggered by popular anger, and how the use of violence can result. No argument there, though the radical boomers found their anger was not shared by very many after all.

The more apt comparison here is the original American Revolution, which was not a revolution at all, not like the Jacobin French Revolution or the like-minded SDS, but a conservative response to governmental tyranny.

That violence was justified and necessary. Let's hope the current descent into socialist tyranny does not require the same.

Maybe, but deficit cutting and spending control was not in the DNA of the Liberals. Reform ideas were toxic, and treated as such by the media and government.

The staid conservatism that characterizes Canada of today, stable banks, fiscal responsibility (notwithstanding the current deficit) was created during those times. The profligacy of the Obama administration was equalled by the Liberal and Conservative governments of the time.

There was a sea change in political assumptions. In the electorate, media and political class.

The tea party movement is a seed of such a sea change.

I doubt that Obama will follow. But it was not apparent that the Liberals under Chretien would either. Their first year or so was similar to Obama's first year.

Interestingly, when Thatcher did what the Liberals did, it was evil. With the Liberals, it is a Nixon to China situation.

Bill Ayers - a domestic terrorist - has actually been invited into the White House to visit with his friend the president, Barack Obama.

See those people in the bottom photo: They're not holding pipe bombs, they're waving American flags and eating BBQ. The guys in the upper photo were shouting "KILL THE PIGS." They actually murdered police.

The Tea Party are seniors waving flags and urging people to vote the thieves out.

See how similar they are?

"See how dangerous those elder voters will become if we don't put them down now." That's the message.

No, The Zero wants his agenda. He doesn't give a damn about the country, other than it is changed according to his views.

bag is right in his points. The issue of method, though, is a bit more complex. I've always believed, even at the time, the whole 60s protest movement was one big tantrum ("I don't hafta and I don't wanna") and some of the stuff we hear from our own National Socialists is an echo of that. The protesters shouted down anyone who dared disagree with them - and are still trying to do so.

Ann's characterization of how the Establishment (horrors!) Left views those days and their actions in them is on the money. "We believed in peace and love", but strutted with pride at the thought they "had hounded Lyndon Johnson out of office" (their words, not mine).

What Ann sees as the writer's warning, "a group with enduring gripes is shut out of the political process", has already begun to happen - witness Pelosi Galore's delight at "ramming through" ZeroCare and her stated intention to do the same with other pieces of controversial legislation (immigration, cap & trade, card check, ...). A more important part, a crumbling economy, was not a part of the 60s, but is now. Germany isn't the only place such violence happened in such an economic climate, there was plenty right here. And, according to Gallup, the real unemployment figure is about 20%.

The campus commandos of the 60s were the spoiled (more ways than one) children of the well-to-do who had everything handed to them and had never been told, "No". The Tea Partiers are drawn from a much broader swath of the general public who are watching their futures thrown away by the capricious and vain whim of a political class out of touch. Some people may compare the situation to the 1960s; others, though, think it more resembles the 1850s, with a fundamental schism between the large groups of the American people (something noted by as astute an individual as Victor Davis Hanson).

That's why the trolls here are so eager to dismiss it. They would be on the losing side. Whether it turns violent, and Alpha notwithstanding, it seems to have perhaps begun to do so on the Left, will be interesting to see.

Now, I understand the right-wing anger — hmmm — at the juxtaposition. The 60s protesters are Weathermen, and the Weathermen advocated and practiced violence. They murdered people. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are engaging in the highest form of freedom of expression: assembling in groups and criticizing the government.

In an alternate reality, this comment from one of your very own little home-grown radicals would not be considered an invitation to entertain violence:

That violence was justified and necessary. Let's hope the current descent into socialist tyranny does not require the same.

The backhanded double-talk betrays its purpose by describing the object of a supposedly hypothetical coup as "tyranny". Them's fighting words. And that's just on this very thread - a thread committed to accusing the press of going too far in its descriptions of the violent tendencies of the far right! You have another commenter or two who is unhinged enough to have gone quite a bit further in her predictions (and blame for) the bloodshed that she preemptively absolves the right for committing by "reasoning" that such actions merely constitute a response to something that, you know, they just don't like.

So, it's sort of like what Hamas says when they blame Israel for making terrorists "angry" enough to, you know, murder scores of civilians.

Yeah, Tea Partiers, we get your point. You're angry and you don't know what you could do. How foreboding. Kind of like David Banner who warns us that if we "make (him) angry" that he could turn into the raging green monster known as The Incredible Hulk, the Tea Partier absolves himself of responsibility for the actions he entertains and conspires to commit by virtue of the no longer subdued, unhinged emotional state in him that "liberals" are somehow responsible for unleashing.

And of course those of us who live in reality understand that the far right is merely emulating the movements of long ago (the only thing they're capable of doing), whether they were colonial revolutionary or domestic radical. They talk of patriotism, but violence is obviously what animates any more elevated source of inspiration into their consciousness. The common thread in all of these movements is the decidedly less noble one: The violent one.

The talk of violence, the acts already committed (and currently planned) in its name, the obsessive appeals to overthrow and stockpiling, these all speak for themselves. Only an imbecile or his disingenuous enabler couldn't see it.

"The talk of violence, the acts already committed (and currently planned) in its name, the obsessive appeals to overthrow and stockpiling, these all speak for themselves. Only an imbecile or his disingenuous enabler couldn't see it. Stop laundering violence."

Oh, I see. Now that the left has used violence to gain control ... only now do they want to see the violence put to a stop.

What the fuck makes you think that's going to happen?

Here's what we're going to do, kid: We're going to violently overthrow your political party. Then, we're going to take control of both Houses of the Congress and crank up the investigation machine. We're going to put every single one of your officials under oath and into the dock and then into jail.

And then, when we're done putting these thieves in jail, we're going to eject your president from our White House.

That's right: It's ours.

And we're not going to even have to fire a single shot to get the job done. We don't need violence, frankly, to rid ourselves of this bunch of fucking pussies.

I'm endlessly amazed at the left's willingness to be blinded to substance by it's easy distraction to style, no matter how slight. They will make it up, if need be, to understand the world.

It's a different world where any evil can be dressed up well enough to be acceptable in liberal company, until they go out of style at least. But there is always the rehab and comeback in the new style.

For example: A terrorist can, years later, get dressed up as faculty and repeats the same crap in new clothes and finds a new home and a little better appointed at that.

Be honest, Bag. You don't see any pretexts thrown out here willy-nilly. If you don't like the characterization than call it out and draw a boundary when you see it. But enough of your buddies here refuse to.

I'm always leary of major newspaper viewpoints on rebellious events. Especially those they don't attend. I was on the Univ. of Wisc. campus, living in an apartment on State Street during one such episode in the fall of 1961.

At bar closing time, the "Brat Haus" emptied in to the street, and among those customers was a pretty young woman who decided to "bullfight" passing cars with her removed blouse. Many "hurrahs" latter, plus some beer kegs rolled in to the street for freshment, and the city fathers decided it was a riot and sent in the police, fire department, and finally the Dane County Sherrifs. That, of course, is when the "riotous" behavior began.

Evil things like taking over the water cannon on the fire truck and cheery bombs inserted in to police car radiators to go boom with much water spraying. To cheers and laughter the next miscreant would scramble out to do something "riotous" defiant thing.

When the Sherrifs arrived with K9 dogs the event died out rather quickly, the young lady put on her blouse, and we all went home. Which would have happened much earlier if the police, fire, etc. forces and such had not responded. Nobody was throwing bricks or setting fires or looting. Redwood & Ross customers generally didn't do those things.

Next day? Chicago papers headlined the "RIOT in Madison" and determined the disrobed lady was an ex-Playboy Bunny.[??]

Who knew? We only knew there was beer, a pretty woman exposing her bra, while dancing in the street, and dour authorities on whom we just had to play pranks. I assure you the "news" printed was a point of hilarity to anyone who was there.

"Yep, the left used violence to gain 10 million more votes and win the Congress in 2006."

When the President of the United States urges his SEIU hit squads to "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" that is a call to violence.

Barack Obama is trying to start a civil war. He must have one to survive.

Barack Obama wants violence - so that he can suspend habeaus corpus. He wants racism to exist. He needs it to exist. They want spitting, so they walk through the crowds with mallets trying to incite violence.

Trying to egg someone on to call them "nigger" so they can get it on camera. I have no doubt they'll eventually sneak one of their people in and get the job done, but it won't work. The jig is up.

The Congress is going to be in Tea Party controlled Republican hands. Every committee of the Congress is going to launch 3 years of under-oath investigations.

Every single one of your guys is going under oath. All the felony tax evaders are going to be put in prison where they belong. All the money launderers shoveling $100 bills out to ACORN are going to jail and RICO is going to make a huge comeback.

Well, Bag, if you don't know the definition of basic English words, you could always look them up in a dictionary.

Or you could continue to give aid and comfort to violently unhinged radicals - and reap all the P.R. benefits of that. You only have yourself to blame. At some point it's not as funny to everyone else as it is to you.

the size of the Tea Party movement is a safeguard. In Carey's scenario, it's only if the masses of people — the ordinary, pretty conventional people — cool off and go home that we ought to worry about violence.

And that is why they are focusing on the ugly to get the normal to fear showing up.

I don't think the mainstream left wants anything other than to know who are the violent nuts that live in an alternate conspiratorial reality (inherently dangerous and worthy of attention) and who aren't. Too bad if that offends you.

Whatch out Ritmo, the Teabaggers are coming to get you. You're lucky they generally have jobs, assets and families that tend to make them prefer peaceful change and prevent them from wanting to tear down the country and institutions they love. They are fixers, not revolutionary burn-down-the-establishment types.

The quote was attributed to disgraced representative Eric Messina (not Obama) and "punch(ing) back" is by definition legitimate defense. Further, it was in reference to campaign tactics, not physical violence.

Ham is either a Moby or too idiotic to even be an effective radical. What a limp dick. Anyone even believe Ham's a "female", as stated in the profile?

I've been thinking the same thing-I'd "trust" the Tea Party more if they were trying to mess up both parties' primaries-instead they only focus on causing strife on the Republican side.

And we have a certain "leader" saying that the competition will only bring about "efficiencies".

That might work in business but it's complete bunk in politics. Cosnervatives and Tea Partiers have an absolutist nature and they very well could stay home and not vote in the general if their specific most radical politician does not win the primary.

So as your example suggests-the Tea Party could benefit Democrats the most-in fact they could end up being Obama's best hope.

I'm not afraid of anything, just read signs that reflect a mindset too paranoid and ignorant for me to understand, and hear talk of stockpiling and violence. I also hear obsessive references to events so far from the past that they could only seem relevant to people who are not living in the present reality.

As far as the demographics of the Tea People, I'm not sure what a broad cross-section tells me - even if it were accurate (and who knows where you got your statistics). If they harbor and nurture and refuse to repudiate the violent conspiratorialists that seek refuge among them, then that's all that matters. In the event that they don't do anything to quell the disturbed thoughts of any more Timothy McVeigh-like "footsoldiers" their legacy will be sealed. You know the left and the government and the independents can't do anything about that. Only you can. And you refuse to, don't you?

"You know the left and the government and the independents can't do anything about that. Only you can. And you refuse to, don't you?"

If they are violent, the government can arrest them, the independents can abandon them, so what is the problem here?

I'll tell you: They are not violent, but are gaining strength. As a lefty, you must stop them. So, you say they are violent and dangerous every chance you get, because it's not what's true that counts, it's what people think is and you know it. It's not exactly subtle what your up to, dude. You need to be a Moby, they get the job done better, or you could work with one, tag team.

I refuse to deal in anything that involves the dishonesty of a Moby and I could care less about making any of this any more political than it already is. I am actually interested in policy in itself, which is more than I can say for you.

And as for the "if" in your question, I don't see how flying planes into buildings leaves any doubt as to the violence of which one is capable.

The other thing is this talk of tyranny - sure a lot of it is rhetorical. But when you combine the elements of unhinged people with talk of armaments and how big and scary and unstoppable the government is (its democratically-elected nature apparently notwithstanding, funny), then committing violent acts in the name of taking on the IRS takes on a whole new meaning.

These things actually happened, did they not?

As I said, we just want a clearer sense of where your rhetorical "flourishes" (which sound a bit like "Death to Israel", "Death to America",) are being seeded in the minds of psychotic people who actually believe that this government resembles anything having to do with Adolf Hitler or whichever other little homicidal maniac you want to conveniently use as a mindless comparison.

At some point, I'm interested in knowing the intended audience for your propaganda. Surely you've thought that through. I mean, that is an important consideration in how you intend to "market" your little political message, I should think.

"I don't see how flying planes into buildings leaves any doubt as to the violence of which one is capable."

A communist did that. He left a manifesto for everyone to read than ended with the Communist creed - very similar to Barack Obama's creed of stealing from those who have more than him and giving it to his friends. Redistribution, he calls it.

And you can't have Redistribution without Red - now can you?

What about bombing the Pentagon? Barack Obama's friend Bill Ayers' group did that. Would you care to comment on what that means Barack Obama is capable of?

Barack Obama is murding Pakistani's with drone aircraft flown from Florida. Does that sort of violence bother you, Ritmo? Actual killings? Murders from on high? Bother you at all?

Or do you only want to comment on what you claim is violence on the right (but which is actually violence perpetuated by your friends in the movemement).

For example, the Michigan militiaman arrested the other day was a registered Democrat who voted for Obama.

Nothing to say about this dangerous character who has been donating to your party?

The pairing of the images is too cheap. They should have shown an early anti-war march by SDS. That would have captured the two movements at comparable stages in their evolution.

The tea party movement is what, a year old? SDS was, in 1969, about 6 years old. It had taken several years for the Weather faction to emerge and endorse terrorism (which I think was their position when the picture was taken).

We'll have to wait and see how the Tea Party evolves, particularly if their efforts to influence politics are frustrated.

Finally, I'd quibble over your "murdered" phrase--they were incompetent killers. The nuts on the fringe of the pro-life movement or Major Hassan have killed more people than the Weathermen.

Although I have been to multiple Tea Party events, involving tens of thousands, I have heard more talk of violence from you alone Ritmo than I did from all those thousands. The media have been doing this Ritmo impersonation since the movement began.

I've also been to code pink and other anti-war protests and the rhetoric there was often violent with much talk of tearing down this or that and talk about assassinating the President or other crap. That never scared me. It was the ideas that they wanted to promote that were scary to me.

Ritmo, why don't you just admit the same here: You are scared of the Tea Party IDEAS, not some bogeyman violence crap. In fact, you would love to see some Tea Party nut do something violent. You would be jumping up and down and blog your tiny fingers off.

Enjoy your cup and don't be afraid to try the Chamomile and Rooibos. They're herbal, more calming and will help facilitate a sane discussion of these ideas you hope to impress upon a government that is not as tyrannical as the other Command Post surveyors believe. Plus since one's African and the other Roman, they'll help you cope with the reality of the multicultural America that we all live in and the Greco-Roman political legacy that keeps us more civilized than we would be if Daniel Boone and the Whiskey Rebellion yahoos were "governing".

I really got to go Ritmo, but think about this: one basic idea of the Tea Party is that government spends too much and the money it spends it spends it poorly because it does not do things well or efficiently.

Although there are a myriad of private sector products and services that are cheaper, better or both than they were before, I can't think of any government services or products that have done the same, can you?

Where is the government version of the computer, watch, cell phone, Fedex, Southwest Air, Walmart, ebay, Amazon, Apple etc.

There are some things government may do well, but it's never cheap and never gets cheaper, but explodes in cost. Those things it does do well, have a large private component, as in the military, but the government component always skyrockets the cost. Also these things never have a private competitor to compare and see if they really do it well at all.

The Tea Party thinks that the government has taken over too much and the result will be skyrocketing costs and poor quality. I think they have a point.

It is hard to understand the 60s without adding 3 other factors (besides the Weatherman sorts) that were big parts of the violent wing of the Left, or co-opted as "champions" of social change and justice.

1. First and foremost, the black rioters that burned cities. This was ably turned by the European Jews that formed the Franfurt School of Marxist Theory (Fromm, Marcuse) etc. and immigrated to the US as refugees - into a textbook argument that Communism had changed into a New Left. Class struggle was out, because the workers themselves were stupid tools of the Elite that where oppressors - the hard hat people, the despicable white Christians smug in their suburbs, and the favorite heavy - Southern racists.Communism, the Frankfurt School, argued, had evolved to become a revolutionary path to achieve social justice.The oppressed Negro was to be championed, as wise communists always had, since forming the NAACP and other organs and Fronts to Elevate the Negro. Only by treating the Negro as a distinct class and identity could they advance.

2. At the same time, Stalinists in NYC began forming radical feminist theory. Their problem with Betty Friedan, also a Stalinist in her younger days, was she was too moderate. Feminism also emerged on a Frankfurt School, critical studies/politics of confrontation template.3. The New Left urged bypassing democracy to mainly focus on forcing change by abandoning fights in institutions where they lacked numbers - such as the American democratic voting process, to focus on where they did have power and could bypass the oppressor voting masses.The media. The legal profession. The arts enlisted in propaganda. Academia. Target students.

And non-communists could be utilized for goals. For example, Saul Alinsky grew up when it was far better to maintain he was Socialist rather than fully embrace the Frankfurt school, but he agreed with 95% of what they were doing and 95% of their tactics.

3. Most people today are not aware of what European history was like back in the 60s, but it was really the battleground where totalitarian communism was rejected, but Social Justice communism had a partial victory. The Soviets got half a loaf rather than the whole thing. They saw the Euros compromise and greatly expand the welfare state, agree that whites were evil colonialist repressors, and that capitalism was an evil thing that had certain great benefits classic Marxism lacked, but which needed to be strictly regulated to control capitalism's inhererent "social injustice".The streets were full of true million man marches. May Day riots where scores of people were killed.It could be argued that the "Game" of controlling what road society went down - was far more important in Europe than America. And the emergent "3rd Way" simply met Frankfurt School Communism halfway while the Soviet totalitarian model was rejected.

They're threatening to come after democratically-elected governments who they say have been cattle-prodded into Gaia-killing.

"We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more."

And more.

We need to hit. Violently, they write.

That's the Greenepeace violent uprising message.

Language direct from Barack Obama.

Greenepeace: "We need to join forces with those within the climate movement that are taking direct action to disrupt the CO2 supply chain."

They are threatening terrorist attacks against major energy infrastructure in the United States.

They say they are going to "join forces" (military language) to "take direct action" (violent resistance) against those they hate.

Violent terrorist imagery straight from the Obama regime.

They end their internet manifesto with this blatant terrorist threat:

Greenpeace: "If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

Obvious, terrorist language intended to threaten and terrorize. It promises upcoming violence by Greenpeace and the other "forces" they're joining with. And they alert you that they know where you live and who you are and they're coming for you.

"Is it a "hit piece" if the NYT parallels Tea Partiers and 60s radicals?"

Well, sort of. Tea Partiers aren't radicals. At this point Americans view them more favorably than Obama, Congress, or either of the major political parties. That sounds more "mainstream" than "radical".

What I find interesting in this piece is the explicit acceptance of the lurid stories posted by the Democrats.

For the record, I do not find the complaint of Virginia's Tom Perriello that the propane line to his brother's outdoor grill was cut by deranged tea-partiers in the mistaken belief that they were attacking him and not his brother. No one knows who cut that line, but a cut line on a propane gas grill is an inconvenience, not an act of violence.

I don't believe that Rep. Cleaver was deliberately spat upon. I see that Rep. Cleaver doesn't, either.

I don't believe that there were racial epithets yelled at Rep. Lewis during his walk to the Capitol building on the day of the Health Care vote. With all the handheld cameras that have taped this provocative gesture on the part of the CBC not a scintilla of evidence supporting the claim has turned up. John Lewis and the rest of the CBC are, quite simply, lying.

And people who believe any of the above are foolish and gullible.

There is a profound asymmetry between the 60's anti-war protesters and today's Tea Party. The 60's anti-war radicals were students -- some of them "professional students" in their seventh or eighth year of undergraduate studies -- or professional protesters living off petty theft, handouts, and money from very wealthy parents. In other words, they were parasites on society. By contrast the Tea Party movement consists of people who work for a living, pay taxes, and -- much to the chagrin of Democrats, they vote.

Greenpeace:"If you're one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this: We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few."

A chilling terrorist threat.

1) If you are undermining legislation they like, but you don't like ... in other words if you're a Congressman not voting the "right way" and "undermining legislation" then they're going to "join forces" for "direct action" against you.

They aren't even veiling these threats.

2) If you're "bankrolling" science they disagree with, they're coming after you. Any science they don't agree with is termed "junk science."

3) If you are fueling "spurious" debate ... not true debate, but spurious debate ... they're coming after you to hit you hard. They, of course, define "spurious" debate. It's any debate they disagree with.

4) If you are a democratically-elected government, but in their eyes you have been "cattle-prodded" into "undermining" their preferred legislation, they are coming after you. They know where you live. They know where you work. They are many. You are few.

Where is the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Why are they not doing their jobs to eliminate these terrorists?

This is an unabashed publicly proclaimed terrorist threat against democratically-elected US Congressmen and the energy producing and distribution infrastructure of the United States (gas stations, pipelines, refineries, coal plants, etc.)

These fucking Greenpeace activists are domestic terrorists within our midst. We should not have to put up with their fucking threats of upcoming terrorism and the violence they and their "forces" are about to unleash upon us.

We need to eliminate this group through legal means, and arrest the elements of the Barack Obama regime in the Justice Department who are illegally conspiring to protect Greenpeace terrorists from being arrested by the FBI.

There are terrorists among us.

Are we going to sit here and do nothing while they threaten violence to stop debate?

While lurking at a number of different blogs, the people I see talking stock piles and violence in the street are not, IMO, the Tp types- they've given up and are waiting for the coming storm. TPers are more proactive; they believe they can prevent the complete destruction of the economy by forcing our congress to act responsibly, using the threat of voting them out. Of course, I do believe that if the govt ignores or tries to stifle the movement, it could turn violent.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."-JFK

Part 2The TPers I've met are average people, concerned about what the huge deficits will do to their children's future, alarmed at seeing friends and family members lose their jobs and businesses, feeling betrayed by Bush and the Republicans who promised fiscal responsibility, (which is why there is no eagerness to be affiliated with that party), and feeling that they need to trade their past complacency and apathy for action. The protests and rallies are to let our representatives know that we are watching and judging them. And will vote them out if we don't like what we see.

The economic crash of 2008 was the wake up call for many. Even if McCain had won instead of Obama, the Tea Party would still exist, (unless by some miracle McCain had solved the economic mess by now.) And had McCain been elected, the media would love the Tea Party and would sing its praises daily. The TPers would be called patriots instead of tea-bagging racists.

Ayers' wife said that she actually admired the Manson family, and that there should be more forks in the bellies of pigs like Sharon Tate, which they should then proceed to eat dinner from.

That's a little different from the Tea Party folks, I should think, no?

The 60s radicals resented the police and called them bad names, and suggested that they should be put to death.

The Tea Party folks just want law and order and everybody to show a bit of work ethic.

I'd say they are diametrical opposites. I can't imagine anyone in the Tea Party admiring Charles Manson.

But at the highest level the radicals of the 60s admired Charles Manson. Bill Ayers' wife loved Charles Manson and felt that killing people with their silverware and then having dinner with their silverware was the right thing to do.

I take a little bit different view of the juxtapostion of 1960s radicals and Tea Partiers.

By the time I got to college (early 1980's, about the same time as Obama) the conventional wisdom on the 1960s radicals had become that they were too far 'out there' to have had an impact. All sound and fury with nothing to show for it.

It might only be a subtext but I think there is definitely an attempt to remind mainstream liberals of the ineffectualness of their more radical cousins, and to project a similar fate upon the Tea Party.

The 60's radicals were young people, mostly without any occupations, no real stake in society, who existed only to destroy the society that their parents and grandparents built.

The Tea Party people are older, mostly working or retired working, tax payers with a huge stake in society, who exist to try to build a better future for their children, grand children and great grandchildren and who want to keep the society that they themselves and their parents fought to build.

One group is wantonly destructive and one group is carefully conservative.

One group cared only about themselves and about immediate gratification. The other cares about others and about preserving society and is willing to forego the 'government freebies' in order to create long term stability and wealth.

Actually, Der Hahn may be on to something. For all the self-aggrandizing claims of the 60s protest leaders, all they really seemed to accomplish was to ensure that Richard Nixon was elected President twice. Similarly, I don't think many people were inspired to vote against George W. Bush by Code Pink or the people who spent the first decade of the 2000s in the streets with papier mache puppets. If history is any guide, loud and obnoxious protests tend to favor the people being protested against, so keep on going Tea Partiers.

I can see how both groups might be considered spoiled, but the sixties group was spoiled by lack of discipline and a callow faith in dangerous and destructive philosophies, and the modern Tea Party movement are "spoiled" by having exercised the discipline of work, investment, obedience to laws and patient building of a better life for them and their children. Now they see all their efforts and patience being threatened by reckless spending and tax increases. And they're angry.

"There is a profound asymmetry between the 60's anti-war protesters and today's Tea Party."

Yes: the 60s protesters were decrying the ghastly Viet Nam war and the rampage of death and destruction wrought by us in that country. Today's Tea Party protesters seem to have a grab bag of ill-articulated grievances, mostly to do with imaginary "socialists" in our government, (such notions planted in their noggins by Fox News and such shrieking nitwits as Glenn Beck), and with wasteful spending by our government.

Okay, I'll give 'em that last one: we squander billions each year on mass murder abroad in wars we shouldn't be fighting, and in a time of financial crisis--created by the huge financial corporations--we squander billions more propping up the very scoundrels and financial institutions who have brought us to a point of potential financial collapse, rather than prosecuting them and providing assistance to the suffering citizens who are the victims of this conspiracy of financial malfeasance. The Tea Partiers don't, as far as I have seen, condemn the squandering of our treasury in our terror wars of mass murder, so I think they really are just having a fit of pique that money is being spent on things they don't like.

But, really, the Tea Party folks--a distinct minority faction in the country at present, their grandiose view of themselves otherwise notwithstanding--are merely acting out of inchoate anger at and fear of "government," but they have no clearly thought through platform, no action plan, and no specific goals, really.

There's plenty to be angry at and fearful of these days, no question, and the government is the source of much that is to be fear or scorned--although I'm sure my own views and those of the Tea Partiers are largely divergent with respect to those aspects of government to be feared and scorned--but what do the Tea Partiers expect to accomplish, and how?

The signiture of sixties radicals was opposition to the Vietnam war. It was a youth movement for quite a while, and finally got major political leverage when older, mainstream people got involved.

The Tea Parties are basically a middle aged movement. I believe that they will have decisive impact only when large numbers of college students and other young people get visibly involved. They might, if they ever realize what is at stake for them.

TPers are more proactive; they believe they can prevent the complete destruction of the economy by forcing our congress to act responsibly, using the threat of voting them out. Of course, I do believe that if the govt ignores or tries to stifle the movement, it could turn violent. The TPers I've met are average people, concerned about what the huge deficits will do to their children's future, alarmed at seeing friends and family members lose their jobs and businesses, feeling betrayed by Bush and the Republicans who promised fiscal responsibility, (which is why there is no eagerness to be affiliated with that party), and feeling that they need to trade their past complacency and apathy for action. The protests and rallies are to let our representatives know that we are watching and judging them. And will vote them out if we don't like what we see.

Yeah, Just Lurking. But there's one problem with that: These "average people" of whom you speak don't know shit about economics, and became much louder during the enactment of a stimulus that was required to prevent a depression than they ever would have over that humongous government expenditure known as an upper-class tax cut. In fact, they have been known to support such forms of massive government expenditure quite enthusiastically, and don't seem to find fault with getting the government to default when it rests on the schemes that they prefer -- like that one.

So essentially, they don't have any argument when it comes to policy. These are ideological grievances that disregard everything Paul Krugman, Robert Schiller, and this guy (who is the son of this guy) have to say. As with so many other sciences, they are now prepared to sacrifice economics itself on an altar of a myopic and maniacal greed. They don't see the problem in using ideology to guide their ideas and in rejecting this, and that causes them to be taken less seriously than those of us who don't believe that all knowledge was frozen in a time warp in the year 1776 and that we haven't learned anything since. Your sentiments may echo back to that year, but if you want to stay alive and prosper in the modern world your understanding of reality shouldn't.

Now, I know how much you guys like to portray your masses as just average joes opposed to elitism and, you know, a university education. But they have now revealed themselves to be in opposition to knowledge itself and that's no way to govern a nation. You can run an ideological movement created in the image of David Bradford that way, but not the government representing a nation of 300 million people.

Cook - "Okay, I'll give 'em that last one: we squander billions each year on mass murder abroad in wars we shouldn't be fighting,"

Garbage Far Left talking point.If all war is viewed from a law enforcement construct, instead of by traditional law of war...then we are in turn the other cheek, pacifism territory.

For legally, good intentions or not, there is little different between killing a child molestor without trial or killing a Mom on the front lawn out gardening her daffodils.

When would it not be murder? Presumably, if the Far Left was given such power over all of us, killing and destruction only in "good causes". Presumably, that would mean it was OK to burn Atlanta because Georgians were oppressors of the noble negro, bomb a German train station in WWII, but not bomb a village of "innocent Vietnamese" making explosives on the outskirts of Hanoi.I'd rather leave that to the elected Congress and President, acting as extensions of the Will of the People to determine "who needs a good killin'".

Not little ideologues sitting on the sidelines or lawyers completely unaccountable to The People.

What we learned in 1776 - the single most important lesson - was that a ruler unanswerable to those who were ruled was doomed to fail. Free people are governed.

I don't expect perfect. We are but men, after all. But argument in the above comment seems to presume that government is somehow on the right track spending our grandchildren into slavery, and that the Tea Party individuals are to be dismissed out of hand.

A republic may be unpleasant from time to time, but it self corrects eventually. At least as long as it remains a republic, that is.

Communism always starts our 'for the downtrodden' and ends up making everybody the downtrodden... except for the botoxed limousine class.

I think one reason the Tea Partiers are obsessed with communists is because they have so much in common with them. They are both willing to substitute empiric and rational knowledge with a belief, a core faith, a creed of sorts, that rejects all known factual discourse on the matter. Of course, they differ on what that faith is and how it operates, but they are both guided by a faith, rather than a body of knowledge founded on facts.

These "average people" of whom you speak don't know shit about economics,"

But they have now revealed themselves to be in opposition to knowledge itself and that's no way to govern a nation.

As with so many other sciences, they are now prepared to sacrifice economics itself on an altar of a myopic and maniacal greed.

You do realize that these are individual people you are talking about right? With differing levels of education and experiences? I ask because you seem to have a stereotype in mind to describe a fairly diverse group of people.

I am not a card-carrying TPer, but I have been to a rally, and plan to go to more when I can, to show my support. I majored in economics and computer science and worked in the public sector for close to a decade, before I gave it up to make money on Wall Street in IT. I know first-hand how the public sector works, and it scares me to think they are gaining more control over our lives and our money.

But it doesn't take a degree in economics to be concerned about the largest deficit in the history of the country. Common sense should suffice.

It's a common argumentative tactic to describe oneself and those one likes as using cool reason, while characterizing opponents as controlled by emotions. Thus Obama is cited - without convincing evidence - as Spock, while the Tea Partiers are expressing "fear," "anger," and always with a sub-literate cite to "The Paranoid Style of American Politics" thrown in the show the sophistication of the speaker.

And a lot of us are getting tired of that bullshit.

Obama does not strike me as particularly rational; he is an inflexible, uncreative ideologue, which is an essentially emotional phenomenon. Obama exhibits logorrhoea, but cannot frame an effective argument (see, e.g. Health Care Reform.) And Obama's supporters - from the "Yes we Can" chanting idiots to the "moderate Republicans" transfixed by Obama's pant crease or by his "superior temperament" - were not exhibiting reason.

We Tea Partiers employ arguments. We know the value of liberty, and we know American history. We have read Locke, Hayak, Friedman, Rand, Sowell, etc., and we put their words on our placards. In a contest of reason, I'd put a Tea Partier up against a New York Times writer or a David Brooks/Kathleen Parker-type twit any day of the week.

I’ll explain, but first, Prof A seems to be wearing her Kathleen Parker/David Brooks hat here. Well written, but trying to balance an unbalanced presentation is impossible, as Prof A has proven.

Anyway, for reasons unimportant, something has caused a few of our HS classmates to e-mail each other about our school days. Very light, non-threatening, non-global, non-political stuff. A lot of fun.

Then, for some reason, one guy apparently felt he had a right, nay a duty to take a shot at Tea Party people.

A BFD example of a fallacy of an uncritical thinker: The Common Assumption that everyone on an e-mail thread full of intelligent (or credentialed anyway) people is liberal/progressive.

But even beyond that illogic, he painted opposition to a government takeover of our medical system as nothing more than an attack on the Christian Social Justice principles of one of our still living teachers. This is snobbery, illogical, &, well, un Christian. (And we don’t even know how Old Guy feels about Obamacare, for goodness sake).

Good grief. Some of these people can’t stop. Oh well, beats trying to explain hopeydopeyhealthcare.

I gave him hell for sidebarring & for substance, but you've said it better re substance.

If he or any other “teabagee” continues this, I'm gonna send your comment in reply (with attribution) along with Henninger's Thursday WSJ column, in which he writes:

The tea party movement is getting the most attention because it is the most vulnerable to the standard tool kit of mockery and ridicule. It is more difficult to mock the legitimacy of Scott Brown's overthrow of the Kennedy legacy, the election results in Virginia and New Jersey, an economic discomfort that is both generalized and specific to the disintegration of state and federal fiscs, and indeed the array of state attorneys general who filed a constitutional complaint against the new health-care law. What's going on may be getting past the reach of mere mockery.